Offlcers President Richard H. Close Vice President Matt Epstein Vice President Jules Feir Treasurer Chuck Betz Secretary John Isen /3-ci!71 SHERMAN OAKS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Post Office Box 5223 Sherman Oaks, California 91413 Information: (818) 377-4590 www.shermanoaks914.com Board of Directors Bob Anderson Chuck Betz Richard H. Close Matt Epstein Jules Feir Elke Heitmeyer John Isen Marshall Long Founded in 1964 August 28, 2013 City of Los Angeles City Council City Hall Offices 200 North Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Case Number: CPC 2010-3 152(ZC)(HD)(SPE)(SPR)(SPP)(CUB) VTT-612l6-CN-IA Subj ect: II Villaggio Toscano (IVT) The proposed project is located at a perfect storm of traffic, noise, and air pollution. The existing traffic currently on the adjacent streets is totally gridlocked. The junction of Ventura and Sepulveda in Shennan Oaks is one of the worst intersections in the city. The IVT project will add over 1.6 million annual traffic trips to Sepulveda Boulevard near the intersection with Ventura Boulevard. The EIR cites this and other nearby intersections as areas that have negative traffic impacts that cannot be mitigated. IVT's nearest proposed residential tower is located 35 feet from the 405 freeway near its junction with the 101. As such, the noise levels impacting the proposed structures are 80 dB CNEL, 50% louder than the noise level at the west end of the runways at LAX. These levels exceed standards adopted by the City's Noise Element of General Plan which states that residential uses here are Clearly Unacceptable. The Planning Department states that this will be mitigated byconstruction methods, however this is not allowed under the Noise Element standards at these high noise levels. Air pollution is the third major environmental impact. Recently researchers at UCLA and USC have published a study (Ambient Air Pollution and Autism in Los Angeles County, CA, Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 1211, Number 31 March 2013) linking increased incidences of autism with pollution from freeways, The AQMD has issued a Guidance Document linking cancer risk to the distance between freeways and residences. Their data shows that air pollution at this location is four times the maximum set by the AQMD for residential structures. The developer is proposing to install 12 inch thick air filters on the air handlers in each unit. Unfortunately these have not been shown to be effective against the fine carbon particles that contribute to cancer and autism. This also means that the windows cannot be opened and the fans must run at all times. I presume that the swimming pool users can duct tape filters to their faces, while they are shouting at their friends. Sherman Oeks: HOmc)()WflI:)I'S Assm::iatiof) (SOHA) 1 of 2
Transcript
OfflcersPresident
Richard H. CloseVice President
Matt EpsteinVice President
Jules FeirTreasurer
Chuck BetzSecretary
John Isen
/3-ci!71
SHERMAN OAKS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
Post Office Box 5223Sherman Oaks, California 91413
Information: (818) 377-4590www.shermanoaks914.com
Board of DirectorsBob AndersonChuck BetzRichard H. CloseMatt EpsteinJules FeirElke HeitmeyerJohn IsenMarshall Long
Founded in1964
August 28, 2013
City of Los Angeles City CouncilCity Hall Offices200 North Spring StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012
Case Number: CPC 2010-3 152(ZC)(HD)(SPE)(SPR)(SPP)(CUB)VTT-612l6-CN-IA
Subj ect: II Villaggio Toscano (IVT)
The proposed project is located at a perfect storm of traffic, noise, and air pollution.
The existing traffic currently on the adjacent streets is totally gridlocked. The junction of Ventura andSepulveda in Shennan Oaks is one of the worst intersections in the city. The IVT project will add over1.6 million annual traffic trips to Sepulveda Boulevard near the intersection with Ventura Boulevard. TheEIR cites this and other nearby intersections as areas that have negative traffic impacts that cannot bemitigated.
IVT's nearest proposed residential tower is located 35 feet from the 405 freeway near its junction with the101. As such, the noise levels impacting the proposed structures are 80 dB CNEL, 50% louder than thenoise level at the west end of the runways at LAX. These levels exceed standards adopted by the City'sNoise Element of General Plan which states that residential uses here are Clearly Unacceptable. ThePlanning Department states that this will be mitigated byconstruction methods, however this is notallowed under the Noise Element standards at these high noise levels.
Air pollution is the third major environmental impact. Recently researchers at UCLA and USC havepublished a study (Ambient Air Pollution and Autism in Los Angeles County, CA, Environmental HealthPerspectives, Volume 1211, Number 31 March 2013) linking increased incidences of autism withpollution from freeways, The AQMD has issued a Guidance Document linking cancer risk to the distancebetween freeways and residences. Their data shows that air pollution at this location is four times themaximum set by the AQMD for residential structures. The developer is proposing to install 12 inch thickair filters on the air handlers in each unit. Unfortunately these have not been shown to be effective againstthe fine carbon particles that contribute to cancer and autism. This also means that the windows cannot beopened and the fans must run at all times. I presume that the swimming pool users can duct tape filters totheir faces, while they are shouting at their friends.
Sherman Oeks: HOmc)()WflI:)I'S Assm::iatiof) (SOHA) 1 of 2
The only possible mitigation is reduction in project size or project elimination. The IVT project violatesthe Ventura Boulevard Specific Plan. Clearly it is not uncommon for developers to overreach and proposeprojects well in excess of allowable limits, so that they can later claim to be compromising by reducingthe scale of these projects that still remain in excess of allowable limits.
Unfortunately the city itself ignores its own rules and regulations or rewrites them to accommodatedevelopers. In land use decisions the Council members take turns being the lead lemming, while theothers fall in behind. It is a shame that the citizens must be responsible for enforcing the laws the Cityitself violates.
':(1.-1/ L( itMarshall Long, Ph. \ ., P.E.SOHA Land Use Chairmlacoustics.com
Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assoclallon (SOHA) 2 of 2
Exhibit l; Guidelines for Noise Compatible Land Use(Based on the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, "General Plan Guidelines",1990.To help guide determination of appropriate land use and mitigation measures vis-a-vis existing or anticipated ambient noise levels)_" __ t___ .. ~
Land Use CategoryOay-Nighl Average Exterior Sound Level (CNELdB)50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Residential Single Family, Duplex, Mobile Home A C C e N U U
Residential Multi-Family A A C e N U U
Transient Lodging, Motel, Hotel A A C C N U U
School, Library, Church, Hospital, Nursing Home A A C C N N U
Auditorium, Concert Hall, Ampitheater C C C C/N U U U
Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports C C C C G/U U U
Playground, Neighborhood Park A A A A/N N N/U U
Golf Course, Riding Stable, Water Recreation, A A A A N A/N UCemetery
Office Building, Business, Commercial, A A A AlC C e/N NProfessional
Agriculture,lndustrial, Manufacturing, Utilities A A A A A/e GIN N
A= Normally acceptable. Specified land use is satis- N= Normally unacceptable. New construction or devel-factory, based upon assumption buildings involved opment generally should be discouraged. A detailedare conventional construction, without any special analysis of noise reduction requirements must benoise insulation. made and noise insulation features included in the
c= Conditionally acceptable. New construction or de- deSign of a project.
velopment only after a detailed analysis of noise mlti- u= Clearly unacceptable. New construction or develop-galion is made and needed noise insulation features ment generally should not be undertaken.are included in project design. Conventional conatruc-tion, but with closed windows and fresh air supplysystems or air conditioning normally will suffice.
" ea so " " " ca ss " " " 50 " "W>U "'" ....ssa """ l'IZIU '''' "'" "'" ,~ r,I,.1\.~ "'" !>i'..l'\G llJ.,1.1 SUl6 ,~," " " as " sc es eo " ee " sa ee sa sa
Nci~ Cor.lUllfS:Ire et'fl('\"~lclllJinll R«llCQnI01lTA";"\lonAdmlniot",ti~n·~ lntegrolcd No\$e ModiTho n'.odelod«>nl',V,. it. tn.red Q~ "MU!>llzo<! OFfWli,c 12·momhpaiod ",,\inllDec<;mwll,lOis run yellJly ond lh<:l'"SIIllm1I contollf i~~djustedNmse Mo~ilOri.ng St~I!Ofl (NMS) <IWUlil nlmlgl!
I)wollmg wUl .>/..,l,tiOllS OICIr.tscl on .::<timO]'";ofDnneliOll, .uppkm'tlt"""";!.h I()!;.) llred use "ftile 2000= d,11l,(o1't»lvilioS "f><lM<>IZO\l?(:IThenew bnd= oolnoo~ used 108<nmlelhis nmO<ltltlrough LAWA'~SIlUfl<llnS\l).lk>a Or.lmPMiljg"11Q~ 1'JQgrom) lM>utl> 1>=rnt...'T 31, :roll
Mopprojeotion i,111 Slal~ PI.~.c fet:lln.!:cl ¢tI to(NAOSJ~ ond i$l0e0lorl in Zone 5 "flit. ClIIif«,
Rq>ro<.'uecrl willi pcm11.~<lon !)rIII11<.'tlb:'I mOM!b",ool on J"lb~shled by 1110MAS BRos, I~U<lO .11v. <mY pnrt ollhls mop. IYh.llI... r",,,;t!10Ul p<m!I.";I>Tl,"The :lI1!ltlal value shown for ING4 is 110\.\ true annual ~n!t1esjnce il iSelllcull~ed usins tess !ban ton:rqu:nI<H1i ofdatn.
Ambient Air Pollution and Autism in Los Angeles County, CaliforniaTracy Ann Becerra,1 Michelle Wilhalm,1 Jom Olsen,' Myles Cor.:kburn,z and Beilte Ritz 1
'Dcpilrtcncnt of Epidemiology. Fielding School of Public Health, University of California. los Angeles,los. Ang2ies, ~I«ortlia. USA';l:Depanmcflt of Preventl ....e Medicine, Keele School of Medicine, University of Southern California. los Angeles, California, USA •
nACJ:(CroWID: The preeceeee of :uuistk d.hordet (AD), a. serious devdoprncntal condirion, iw'men &:un~llcilly ovet the. p:ast twa d=dC$; but hlgh.qlClllty popukclDlI.b~scd re.~c:lrch ~ddn::>~ngetiology is limitt:d.On.~ We ~rudied.the.inR=ci: ()f ecpow.= to tnffit·rd;ued. ~jtpollution dW'ingP(~cron the Jevdopmeflt of autism lL.';ing Ih.u from ::o.lrtrlooitornlg ~Uti'ltlS :u>;& 0\ lll.nd use RSTC-$sil>ll(LUR) model to esdmare c:tpIlSlU:~
MEruODS: Cbildreo of mllthep; whQ g:tve binh io los .hnSdct, CWfoma, who were IIi.:lgtlOSC.dwilh 11. prlm;uy AD dbgn.a$i~ at 3-5 ~ of :tg.:-doong 1')98-21109w~e id.e:ocified mrough th,;:C:Jifaro,ia D~p=eu! ofDc'l't:loprn.w.cU Services lUlOlinked to 199$-200(, Wlifortlia birm cen:ifi~.:::>.~. Ft>t 7,603 mUdren wich :mru:m. end 10 controls per cue m:udt.ed by sex, binh year, and mlni·m. ...m ~tion.:>.[.:tge. hinh:ul~ were tn:1pptd acd ticl:cd to me =tt;St::tit tnorJ.rodng u:uianand ::l LUR lnodd. We lJ,I:eC c::;tl1':H!ldo=( logSnlc regt.::o;slon, :tdjw:riug for ro::I.l':cm!ll :>.no p<=t:W::lt:Uch.wo;etisti~ including indhto ... (lf$ES.
Rr:Sl.ll:rs: Per lPlQ;qu:utUc Cl,q~(lQR) Ieceease, we erom:ll~:t 12-15% rd~tive mc:= itt rxlohof autism for crone [odds QUI) (OR) .. 1.12. 95% CJ: 1.06. 1.19i per i lS4-ppb i...~j ;:Ill.Q Pv-ticulatc m:lttr.r s 1.5 pm (OR., 1.15; 95% Cl: 1.06, 1.24, per 1.6B-!l£/m~ it.l.C(=sc) wnen mmu=-Ur::Idju..wg fQr both pn!.luc:tn.tll. Funheuxu:m:., we atitMled 3-9% d.:>.tivl; u,Cl'I:::::t:!;c,~ m odd.~per lQRIncrease for LUI1.-b;c;cO nlrrlc ,,~de and niU'Og= Q.io:dde O'poq,('c: ~dm:>.(C!;. WR-ha.d I>..~erri:!-uoes 'IV(:.{'C monge.1:! ror cl:U1~ of Il1I,Hhas"With 1= Ih:w a higb.Khool d,tc:l.tion. .
","",,,,u=.KEl WORDS;air pelludcn, aurlsm, land-usc rrgreuion, pregnancy. tf;lff.c. Ermiro11.f{~h Puspw.121~8G-38G (11H3)' hnp:rldx..doi.orgnO.1l89hhp.120S827 rOdllle HI December 2012J
Autistic disorder (AD) is a serious develop-mcneal amdicion charactcriu:d by impainncotsi.n sooa! in,ttr:<ction. sbnormalirles in verbaland nonvtroru cornrnunicariun, and rcsrricrcdStereotyped behaviors moughr to be smrlbut-able to insults [0 the del/eloping fe~ and/orinf.ml b~n (Afl'lcriCU'lPsychi2tric: Assoch.tion2000; G~ch ...sind and Levin 2007). The prcva·lcncc of autism 6s men for rhe p.'\St ;20 years,partly due [0 changes in case ddinition ~ndimproved. c;>..Serecognition. Hern-Plcdotrc andDelwlchc {2009} suggcstc:d the observed risein ineidcncc In Cl.l:if&mia hetween 1990 and1.001 may pani:J.\y but nO! fully be apkinedbj- younger age at diageosls (12% increase)and inclusloo of milder cases (')6% increase).Although evidence. for genetic connlbutiensis conndcrcd quite strong. win concordancercscatch recently suggcs[ed th:\r eoviroomcn··~ causes MO:: slsc important (Hallmeycr CI al.1(11). Md his qaite [J;mcci1~bic that multi-ple genes interact with environmental iec-tors {CcderilJOd :\nd Git!berg 2004: Cbsscn<::1 Jl1. 20M).
Few studies to dare have examined theimpllcl of air pollution on brain develop-ment in g.::netal during pregn::mC}', uthoughl\it pollutiol\ cJ{pcsutt during thr prcn;;,talperiod has been asscciarcd witb 11 variety oradverse birth outcomes (run and Yu 1999:RiD. C[ al. 2000; Srim et al. 2005: WUli:uns
380
er al. 1977)lIna oecropsychctcgrce! dfCCl:slater in childhood (Cddc{on-Gw:.iducOMC( al. ZOOB;Edwards cr ;;.1. 20 lQ-; Pereract al, 2006, 2012; Sngli'l cr al. ;2.008; Tangct :11. 2008; Wang ct ~l. 2009). The biolcgi-cal mcchsuisms by which rut pollution m::>.}'cause autism are brgdy unknown, althoughthe immune system has been Impllcared .2.S
possiblypll.ytoga role (Hem-Picclono et i.1008). Only three srudies [0 dare ha v c erarn-Ined llSSoci:nions brovccn autism and all pol.luticn exposurtS dUring the pren;;w period(Kalkbrenner ct:1\. 2010; Volk er al. 2010,Windh:tm Ci. ~. 2(06). 1n one ~[Udy, .wtismwas assadl..u:.d with ambient air concentra-tions of ch1odnAAcJ. solvents "nd heavy rncnlsnear hiM lesid~nces (Windh..un Ct :..I. 100G).Anothu study of autlsm reponed elevatedodds ratios (ORs) for mcthylen~ chloride,quinoline, ;md sryrcae exposures in ;unbicm.ut. but ne:a-null clfcq C!Snm?U-S for .ambictttair meols and allier pollurane [Kalkbrennerct ;tl. .2010). A thkd swdy reported m:u. eM-decn bern 10 moth~J;:;living within 309 m ofit freev.~y Quring prq,'lWlCY were more likdyto be dbgccsed with autism than childrenwhose mothers lived> 1,419 m from a free-way \Vo\kcuL 20il}). .
We derived air pollution exposure mea-sures w:io:g daa from govC'ttlmeru air monl·rcelog sencos m:\( provide information on
spatial and temporal variations in ctireria pol.lutanes, and from" land use regression (LUR)model W~ dCYciopcd for rh.:: Los Angclts AirBasin. Tho! tUR model allowed uS to gtc:atl),improve OUt S'fnth.1 ch.:t.t:.ac:riz.aoon of tt:tffic-related "ir polludon. B~~ hetctogenciry ofthe autism phcncrype :md irs scveriry ffi"Y bemribuubk (0 influences on diifac.1H criricalgestational windows of brain devc\opmctH(Geschwind and Levin :2007), we. :1.150 season-alizcd these t:r:<fficmeasures to invc:rog:lt.:: vul-ncr:ilile trimcstC!S oC dcvelcpmenr .. Here weexamine associations between m(:a!Ored andmodeled exposures to prenatal air pollutionand scusm in children born to mothers in LosAngeles County.OUiforn.i<l. since 199'5.
MethodsIn this pnpul;uiofl-b;l.Scd case-conrrol srudy.our source population conststed of chilodren born in 1995-2006 to mechen whoresided in Los Angdcs County at the rime ofgiving btoh.
Cue {lSCl:nairmu'nll!.ndtkfilli.~n. In LosAngdcs. children with audsm are identifiedthrough seven regional cenrcrs, conrracrcci byme Ulifomia Departmcnr of Develcpmenul$Cf"iccs (DDS), whose SI:~ffdetermine digi.bility and conrdin:lte services in their r!!Sp,::c-rive service areas. Cases :l.tc childt~n ginn~ primary diagnosis of AD. toe most severe~oug the autism spectrum disorders (ASD)diag.ooscs. between 36 and 71 months of~ge ;<[ a Los Angdcs Rc:gional Center dur-ing 1993-20D9. During our study pcdcd,e1igibiliry Ior DDS services did not dependon citiunship of financial status-serviceswere available to ~Uchildren regardless ofwcioccol'lom.ic, hc.:>.tth illliuunce status, orncb.1/cchnic iaemifkac.ion. Rcfcmls !O rhc.tcgion;ti censers an: l.l.'1wlly made by pedhrri-clans, ocher clinical providers. and schcoh.hut parents may also sclf~rt.fcr their rblldrcu.
MdT=' CQrt<:~pondenec tQ B. run., Ocp;<r1m~nl ofEpi&miQklg)', ridding Schco-I of Public HC'.!th. 650~ t. Toung Dt~ los Angckt, CA ?OO9S-lnzUSA. Telephone: (lHlJ 206..7451'. F.-m~jl: briv.e.UClA.ecil.l
This re~(.:>;rch "",2$ spDfu,Q,ed \'Y the C,.lifo!I"~CM~f illl Popuhtioll Roc:w:h. UClA, supporredbr infrntructl.lre gnnt lU4H004I022 [rom thet?"n'u Kcnrwi.l Sh,wn' N':>"'oa:J. lnslitut~ oi ChildH~!.lt ':>;flGHumllJl P.:vdopmcnt.
The 2umou da::kr~Ihq h:wt no actual 01 POlCntUJtl1ID~g nn:..nci.>l ;ntacm.
~d28Jwr2012:~«i17D=~lOI1.
vOWI.IE1211 1'ftIM6EIl3IMardl lOB • :nvircnnle1tal Health Perspru.tlvC,>
Guidance Document
1 ·1
\
\'"
~
0.8c0
'""~1: 0.6'""c0o'" 0.4:>
'"'"0;C>!
0.2
oo 100 200 300 400 500
Distance from Edge of Freeway (m)
Figure 2-1
Relative Concentration of Diesel Particulate Matterin Relation to the Distance from The Edge of a Freeway
Source: South Coast Air Qualify Management District. Adapted from the Ca/ifomfa Air Resources Board's Diesel Risk ReductionPlan.
A comparison of total cancer risk and cancer risk from diesel particulate matteremissions in rural and urban areas shows that cancer risk associated with elevatedlevels of diesel particulate both decrease rapidly within the first 100 - 150 meters fromthe edge of a roadway (Table 2-2). Estimated cancer risk from diesel particulate matteralong rural and urban roadways is decreased approximately 68 percent at a distance150 m (492 ft) from the edge of the roadway. Clearly, these data demonstrate that aminimum distance that separates sources of diesel emissions from nearby receptors iseffective in reducing potential cancer risk. The AQMD recognizes that physicalseparation of the receptors from the pollution sources is not always reasonable orfeasible particularly in mature communities. For example, in southern Los Angelescounty a sequence of land use decisions in urban areas allowed freeway constructionthrough existing neighborhoods.
2-6
Guidance Document
Table 2-2
Cancer Risks from Diesel Particulate Matter at theEdge of Roadways in Rural and Urban Areas
277 343150 m 151 187
197500m 86 159 107
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District. Adapted from the California (Hr Resources Board's Diesel Risk ReductionPlan.
'To account for gasoline vehicle emissions, the diesel PM risl" was multiplied by 1.24. This represents the relative risk contributionfrom benzene, 1, 3 butadiene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde on a basin-wide basis. It is assumed that the vast majority ofbenzene, 1, 3 butadiene, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde emissions come from on-road gasoline vehicles.
The AQMD provides guidance for analyzing cancer risks from diesel particulate matterfrom mobile sources at facilities such as truck stops and warehouse distribution centersin the document titled Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risksfrom Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis. Thisdocument may be downloaded at http://www.agmd.gov/cega/hdbk.htmI.This guidancedescribes analysis of potential cancer risks associated with diesel particulates fromtruck idling and movement (such as truck stops, warehouse and distribution centers, ortransit centers), ship hotelling at ports, and train idling. It is suggested that projects withdiesel-powered mobile sources use this health risk guidance document to quantifypotential cancer risks from the diesel particulate emissions.
Projects that incorporate transit nodes may include a range of multiple services rangingfrom a bus or light rail stop to a combination of services that may include bus, shuttles,light and heavy rail systems. The concept of a "clean" transit node refers to transitservices that predominately operate with zero emission vehicles (e.g., electric light rail),clean fuel vehicles (e.g., compressed natural gas or hydrogen), or vehicles poweredwith low-emission engines (e.g., California certified Super Ultra Low EmissionsVehicles). Projects that emphasize "clean" transit nodes not only minimize VMT, butalso reduce the potential health impacts associated with transit-related emissions onindividuals living near transit services.
Current USEPA regulations establish fuel registration and formulation requirements. Alldiesel fuels and all additives for on-road motor vehicles are required to be registeredwith the USEPA, and all new diesel-fueled on-road and off-road engines and vehiclessold in California are required to meet both federal and state emission certificationrequirements. In addition, the Carl Moyer Program, administered by CARB and local air
VIA HAND DELIVERY AND EMAIL m~@~om~m1m AUG 2 8 2013 ~)
By JvtvMayor Eric GarcettiLos Angeles City Councilclo City Clerk200 N. Spring Street, Room 395Los Angeles CA 90012-4801
August 27, 2013
Re: CF 13-0877 - Further Objections to and Appeal ofVTTM 61216, CPC-2010-3152and ENV-2004-6000-EIR (II Villagio Toscano)
Dear Mayor Garcetti and members of the City Council:
I. INTRODUCTION.
This office represents Sherman Oaks Residents for a Safe Enviromnent ("SORSE"),whose members live in Sherman Oaks and who will be adversely impacted by development ofthe proposed II Villagio Toscano project ("Project"). This correspondence constitutes additionalwritten comments on and objections to the proposed EIR and entitlements for the Project thatsupplement comments previously submitted. Please ensure that notice of all hearings, actions,events and decisions related to the Project are timely provided to this office. All objections,including those regarding proper notice and due process, are expressly reserved.
II. THE CITY CANNOT MAKE THE FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR EXCEPTIONSTO THE SPECIFIC PLAN.
Much of the opposition to the Project stems not from development of the site per se, butfrom the exceptions being sought from the Specific Plan. Many area residents see the specificplan as a compromise between competing community interests. One speaker before PLUMactually referred to the Specific Plan as "a contract with the community." Granting exceptions ofthe scope of those sought here - including a 50% increase in the Floor Area Ratio - upsets thatcompromise and effectively dismantles the specific plan, project by project.
Additionally, the proposed findings before you are not appropriate for exceptions, whichare simply variances by another name. In this regarding I have attached to my letter a memofrom the City Attorney regarding a recent variance case the City lost called Chazanov v. LosAngeles. (Exhibit 1.) The memo quoted from the Court's ruling:
Bradly S. Torgan, JD, AICP
Los Angeles City Council.August 27, 2013Page 2 of6
Some city council members made eloquent and compellingstatements about the need for the city to preserve and increase itshousing stock. These laudable goals, however, may not be uses todismantle the city's zoning scheme in a piecemeal fashion.
So it is here. The city may not use purported benefits of this project to dismantle thespecific plan through the use of exceptions.
m. THE CITY SHOULD NOT GRANT EXCEPTIONS TO INCREASERESIDENTIAL DENSITY NEXT TO FREEWAYS.
The significant and adverse impacts to public health that will result from placing a highconcentration of multi-family units within 500' of a freeway are well-documented and need notbe addressed here. What must be addressed here, however, is how the City has addressed thesewell-documented impacts, most recently with the Casden West project near the 405 freeway.
The CPC recommended approval of Casden West, but only after imposing a projectcondition requiring the applicant to move all residential units outside of 500' from the freeway.(pp. Q-6, F-44.) Contrast that with the situation here, where the closest units are as close as 35'from the freeway.
The Casden West findings noted health risk impacts, and specifically identified outdoorair quality as a concern as a basis for the condition. (pp. F-114-116.) During the course of aFebruary 28, 2013 public hearing the CPC expressed numerous health risk concerns. Theseincluded:
• The general health concerns of putting residential units within 500 feet of a freeway;
• The difficulty in relying on a HEPA filter of Merv-13 to achieve 0.1 micron diameterfiltration, the particulate matter that poses the greatest health risk, according to the airquality consultant who testified at the hearing; and
• The reduction in the effectiveness of any filter with windows (and, as here, balconydoors) that open.
Project opponents appealed and PLUM recommended denial of the appeal. In doing so,PLUM made no changes to the CPC action. The project as approved by the Council upheld theCPC findings and approved a project even smaller than that approved by the CPC.
The City Council should demand no less of this Project.
The Project applicant has gone out of his way to try and distinguish this Project fromCasden West. The projects, though, are similar in the most fundamental of ways -theapplications for both sought to put a high concentration of multi-family units within a few
Bradly S. Torgan, JD, AICP
Los Angeles City Council.August 27, 2013Page 3 of6
hundred feet of a major freeway. If the original Casden West project was bad policy and bad forpublic health, so is this Project, but magnified.
That does not necessarily mean prohibiting all multi-family residential developmentwithin 500' of the freeway. We have acknowledged that a portion of the property is zonedresidential and that most of the property is within 500' of the 101 and 405 freeways. Aprohibition on multi-family residential development within 500' of freeway would precluderesidential development entirely on the property; that is not what SORSE is advocating. What isdoes mean, though, and what SORSE advocates, is that the City should not be grantingexceptions to increase FAR and accompanying density within 500 feet of not just one, but twofreeways, essentially putting more people in harm's way.
Before PLUM, comments were made by Project representatives and staff that the Projecthas the most extensive air quality mitigation ever for a residential project and that the EIRcontains one of the most comprehensive heath risk assessments the City has ever seen. Thosecomments should actually give the Council pause. To have to go to such extraordinary lengths-which are dubious in their effectiveness in any event - to attempt to protect public health is apretty good indication that exceptions to increase density next to a freeway, much less twofreeways, and much less the busiest freeway intersection in the country, are bad policy andcontrary to the air quality goals of the General Plan: I
Within the last week, the L.A. Times reported that SCAQMD will begin monitoringpollution levels near major freeways. (Exhibit 3.) This is a further indication of a public healthhazard that the City is dismissing in granting exceptions to increase the size of the Project. Weurge that the Project and its ElR be denied at least until that significant new data from SCAQMDis made available, and is included in the EIR.
IV. THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC IMP ACTS THAT HAVE YET TO BEADEQUATELY ADDRESSED.
There is no disagreement over the extent of the traffic impacts, with significant andunavoidable impacts to every intersection along Sepulveda from the 101 to Ventura Boulevard.Where there are disagreements over transportation impacts, the applicant has cast it as a battle ofexperts. For two traffic safety hazards created by the Project that we have identified, though,expert opinion is not necessary. They are simply a matter of common sense.
First we noted a design flaw that creates a traffic hazard. When commercial trucksheaded to the loading dock make a right turn off of Camarillo on to the fire lane at the rear of the
The Project applicant has also sought to malign the air quality and noise expertise of Mr. Hans Giroux, whohas opined on behalf of SORSE. His curriculum vitae is again attached as Exhibit 2. It clearly establishes hisprofessional experience with respect to noise and air quality (both highly dependent on atmospheric conditions), andincludes specific projects in Los Angeles in which he has rendered opinions based on his expertise.
Bradly S. Torgan, JD, AICP
Los Angeles City Council.August 27, 2013Page 4 of6
Project, they have to swing into oncoming traffic. That is a safety impact that the EIR neverdiscussed, let alone analyzed.
The response implied that this was, indeed, a potentially significant impact. Rather thansaying there was no impact, the response instead was that the "Project" (without specifying who)will arrange for supermarket deliveries off peak to the extent possible and persormel will be outat the intersection of Camarillo and the fire lane - some 500' away from the loading dock-directing traffic whenever there is a delivery.
This response does not pass the common sense test. First, no condition or otherenforcement mechanism has yet been provided. Second, this response came from the applicant'straffic consultant whose expertise likely does not extend to grocery store logistics. We are told.that the way to mitigate an impact that has been implicitly acknowledged is to have a flag manessentially keeping people from exiting the Project site every time a delivery is being made. Ithink the Council owes it to itself as decision makers and to the public to find out if this isfeasible before approving the Project.
The second hazard is the very real possibility of traffic trying to turn left onto Camarillofrom Sepulveda getting stuck in the intersection. The access to parking for the motel and nearbyapartments is off the south side of Camarillo very close to the Camarillo/Sepulveda intersectionclose enough that eight or nine cars queued up on eastbound Camarillo will be enough to blockthe alley. In the evening peak hours the alley will get blocked by cars leaving both the Projectand the Sherman Oaks Galleria. As a consequence, cars waiting to make the left turn into thealley will stack up traffic trying to make a left turn on to Camarillo from northbound Sepulveda.This will likely back up into the Camarillo/Sepulveda intersection, creating a significant traffichazard.
The response was to suggest putting "do not block" markings on Camarillo and toassume that people will not do stupid things like get stuck in the middle of an intersectionbecause it is a violation of the Vehicle Code.
This response also doesn't pass the common sense test. Common knowledge tells us thatthose pavement markings are honored more in the breach than the observance except, thankfully,in front of fire stations.
That also goes for getting caught in an intersection when the light changes. In ourcollective knowledge we have all seen someone try to be the last person though an intersection,only to get stuck in the intersection when the light turns red because traffic isn't moving. In thiscase, that means southbound Sepulveda traffic - much of it exiting the 101 - could be blocked.The impact remains and needs to be discussed and analyzed before final action on the project.
8radly S. Torgan, JD, AICP
Los Angeles City Council.August 27,2013Page 5 of6
V. THE COUMULA TrW IMP ACTS ANALYSIS IS INADEQUATE ANDOUTDATED.
We previously noted that the cumulative impacts analysis for circulation fails to take intoaccount the 1-405 Sepulveda Pass Improvements Project, which will widen the freeway andmake other improvements north to the 101. See http://www.metro.netiprojects/I-405.click"overview" and "interactive maps" (incorporated herein by reference). Construction will occurthrough at least mid-2014, creating impacts to Sepulveda Blvd. and other area streets that willhave overlapping and cumulative impacts with Project construction. None of that was disclosed,analyzed or mitigated, thus further rendering the ErR defective under CEQA. As of the date ofthis correspondence, no revised cumulative impact analysis has been made publicly available.
As also previously noted, the 1-405 Sepulveda Pass Improvements Project is not the onlyproject to have been improperly omitted from the related projects list and cumulative impactsanalysis. The list also excludes the NBC Universal City Vision Plan (1.56 million square feet ofcommercial space plus approximately 500 hotel rooms and approximately 2,000 multi-familyunits) and the Fashion Square Expansion (172,000 square feet of new commercial space), eventhough II Villagio Toscano is included in both of those project's respective related projects lists.The Fashion Square Expansion related projects list itself also lists other projects in relativelyclose proximity to Il Villagio Toscano that do not, but must, appear in the Il Villagio Toscanorelated projects list.
While SORSE believes that the list of related projects is some five years old and shouldbe updated and the cumulative impact analysis revised, updating is not even an issue with respectto these related projects. The related projects list for Il Villagio Toscano was not generated untilOctober 2008. The Draft EIR for the 1-405 project was released in May 2007. The Notices ofPreparation for the Universal City project and the Fashion Square project were released in July2007. The preparers of the Draft EIR knew or should have known of these other significantprojects at the time the related projects list was generated. The EIR cannot be properly certifieduntil this information is provided and analyzed.
VI. CONCLUSION.
There is a project appropriate for this site - just not this one. It is simply too large and itsimpacts have not been correctly disclosed, analyzed and mitigated. We respectfully urge theCouncil to reject the Project and the EIR in their current form.
Sincerely,
~f~,
Bradly S. Torgan, JD, AICP
Los Angeles City Council.August 27, 2013Page 6 of6
City Hall East200 N. Main StreetRoom 701Los Angeles, CA 90012
CARMEN A. TRUTANICHCity Attorney R13-009()
9i1AR 2 9 2m3REPORT NO.
REPORT RE:
COURT-ISSUED WRIT COMMANDING THE CITY COUNCIL TO SET ASIDE ANDRECONSIDER ITS OCTOBER 4,2011 DETERMINATION GRANTING VARIANCES
AND AN ADJUSTMENT FOR 1100-1102 STEARNS DRIVE
CHAZANOV v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et a/.LASC CASE NO. BS 135382 (COUNCIL DISTRICT 5)
The Honorable City Councilof the City of Los Angeles
Room 395, City Hall200 North Spring StreetLos Angeles, California 90012
Council File No. 11-1556
Honorable Members:
We are presenting to you for your action, consistent with its terms, a court-issuedwrit in Chazanov v. Cily of Los Angeles, sf al., LASC Case No. BS135382. A copy ofthe writ is attached. The writ of mandate commands the City Council of the City ofLos Angeles to set aside and reconsider its October 4, 2011, determination grantingthree variances and an adjustment for 1100-1102 Stearns Drive, in light of the Court'sJanuary 17, 2013, order in this case.
Background
Eric Harnmerlund and Terrence Villines, Real Parties In Interest in the lawsuit,purchased the property at 1100-1102 Stearns Drive on December 27, 2005. Theproperty was irnproved with a duplex, a garage and a separate recreation roorn in asingle-farnily residential neighborhood, zoned R 1. The Los Angeles HousingDepartrnent issued an Order to Comply to the Real Parties for illegal use of the
The Honorable City COUIof the City of Los Angeles
Page 2
recreation room as a third dwelling unit. On June 29, 2009, Real Parties sought threevariances and an adjustment in order to legalize the recreation room as a dwelling unit.Specifically, the application sought a variance to allow use of the recreation room as adwelling unit; a variance to forgo the required parking space for the third unit: a varianceto allow automobiles to back out of the garage onto the street: and an adjustment toallow a smaller rear yard than the required 15 feet. The Zoning Administrator deniedthe requests for the variances and adjustment. The Real Parties appealed the ZoningAdministrator's determination to the Central Area Planning Commission (APC). TheAPC denied the appeal and sustained the Zoning Administrator's determination. TheAPC determination was mailed August 30, 2011.
On September 13, 2011, the- City Council asserted jurisdiction over the matterpursuant to Charter provision 245. On October 4, 2011, the City Council voted to grantthe variances and the adjustment.
On January 9, 2012, the Chazanovs initiated a writ petition against the City ofLos Angeles and Real Parties in Interest Hammerlund and Villines in the matter entitledChazanov v. City of Los Angeles, LASC Case No. BS135382. After holding a hearingand considering the briefing of the parties, the Court issued a decision and order findingthat the City Council abused its discretion in granting the thre~e~'lill' 1JlCflS.an>:.i- -,
~ent, and granted the Chazanovs' requeslfp.La ..wrlt (The Court held thatsubstan1i8levidence did not support the first and third elements for granting a varianceto use the recreation room as a dwelling unit.
The first element requires a finding that a variance is necessary because strictapplication of the zoning ordinances would result in practical difficulties or unnecessaryhardships inconsistent with the purpose of the zoning ordinance. The Court explainedthat there was insufficient evidence that the Real Parties would suffer unnecessaryfinancial hardship unless the variances were granted. No evidence was presented thatReal Parties would not be able to pay their mortgage, taxes or insurance unless theycontinued to receive rental income from the illegal third dwelling. The Court also heldthat the City Council's finding that the Real Parties' tenant and the City would suffer ahardship due to a decrease in rental housing stock unless the variances were grantedwas neither relevant as a matter of law nor supportable as a matter of fact. The Courtemphasized that the first element looks only to burdens placed upon the varianceapplicant, not the applicant's tenant or other third parties.
The third element requires a finding that the variance is necessary for enjoymentof substantial property right which, because of special circumstances and practicaldifficulties, is denied to the property in question. The Court held that the City Council'sacknowledgement that, "No other similarly situated zoned properties in the same vicinityhave been granted any variances to allow for conversion of more units beyond thosewhich are currently permitted by the zoning or those which were permitted by prior
Recommendation
The Honorable City COUIof the City of Los Angeles
Page 3
zoning," was fatal to the Real Parties' application, as it demonstrated there were nospecial circumstances for 1100-1102 Stearns Drive.
In conclusion, the Court noted that some City Council "members made eloquentand compelling statements about the need for the City to preserve and increase itshousing stock. These laudable public policy goals, however, may not be used by theCity Council to disrnantle the City's zoning scheme in a piecemeal fashion."
The writ issued on February 15, 2013. The writ commands the City Council toset aside and reconsider its October 4, 2011, deterrnination granting the three variancesand an adjustment, in light of the Court's January 17, 2013, decision and order, within90 days of the date of the writ's issuance. The writ is transmitted with this Report.
We request your action consistent with the enclosed court-issued writ, to setaside and reconsider the City Council's October 4, 2011, determination in light of theCourt's decision and order,
Very truly yours,
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Deputy CityAttorney Arny Brothers at (213) 978-8069, She or another member of this Office will bepresent when you consider this matter to answer any questions you may have.
CARMEN A. TRUTANICH, City Attorney
ByPEDRO B, ECHEVERRIAChief Assistant City Attorney
PBE:AB:glAttachment
M:\Real Prop_Env _Land Useu.ano Use\Amy Brothers\Chazanov\Correspondence\Report to Council about writ.doc
Consultant, Atmospheric Impact Processes, Irvine, CA, 1977-present.
HANS D. GIROUX Page 2
PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES:
Military: Performed operational weather forecasting for jet aircrews; trained newpersonnel; responsible for ground safety, security, records administration,quality control, forecasting methodology research, and liaison with other baseunits; air defense battle staff weather officer; and deputy detachmentcommander.
University: Conducted laboratory sessions; instructed students in the use ofmeteorological instrumentation; demonstrated weather analysis techniques;supervised student weather observation programs; gave lectures and tests.
Private:Air Quality
Prepared air quality impact assessments for coal- and oil-fired, nuclear, solargeothermal and wind energy power generation systems; prepared impactassessments for transportation systems, industrial emissions sources,wastewater treatment plants, landfills, toxic disposal sites, oil processingfacilities, mining operations, commercial, residential, institutional andrecreational land uses, airports and harbors; conducted atmospheric gas tracerexperiments; developed numerical airflow analyses; and conducted numerousmeteorological and air quality data acquisition programs with a very strongemphasis in arid environments, geothermal development, odors and nuisanceand in regional pollution impacts from Southern California urbanization.
Developed impact assessments for roadways sources, constructionequipment, sand and gravel plants, wineries, industrial equipment, gasrecovery plants, railroads, recreational activities and oil refineries; monitoredambient noise levels from above sources, calibrated highway traffic noisemodel (FHW A-RD-77-1 08), and calculated sensitive receptor noiseexposures; wrote community noise ordinances, purchased monitoringequipment and trained city staff; performed noise mitigation studies includingbarrier design, location, equipment noise control, and residential buildingretrofits.
PROFESSIONAL REFERENCES
Mr. Rich Ayala, Senior Planner, City of Ontario, 909-395-2421Mr. Jerry Backoff, Planning Director, City of San Marcos, 760-744-1050Mr. Albert Armijo, Planning Director, City of Aliso Viejo, 949-425-2527Ms Alia Hokuki, Senior Planner, AECOM, Inc., 949-660-8044Dr. Joyce Hsiao, President, Orion Environmental Associates, 415-951-9503Ms. Valerie Geier, President, Geier & Geier Consulting, 510-644-2535Mr. Tom Dodson, President, Tom Dodson & Associates, 909-882-3612Mr. David Tanner, President, EARS!, 949-646-8958Mr. Primo Tapia, Vice-President, Envicom Corp., 818-879-4700
City of Los Angeles Project Experience:
e Boyle Hotel Redevelopment Project
• Bellevue Rec. Center Noise Studies
• Hollywood Bungalows Noise Compliance Study
• 2700 S. Figueroa Noise Compliance Study
• Mardinian Armenian School Expansion
e Lorena Condos Initial Study (noise & air)
• Imperial! I 15th Freeway Exposure Air Quali ty Study
• Rosecrans/Figueroa Charter School Air Quality Study
• Little Tokyo Block 8 Redevelopment Study
e Little Tokyo (2nd & Central) Redevelopment Study
• Chinatown Redevelopment Plan
• Westchester Neighborhood School Expansion
• LAUSD Primary Center #1
• 1. A. Mart Expansion
• Sunset/Olive Mixed Use Project
• Hollywood Marketplace
.. SCRRA Positive Train Control (Los Angeles River Subdivision)
• Villagio Project Peer Review
• Pacoima/Panorama City Redevelopment Area Expansion
latimes.comAir board will start monitoring pollution next to So'Cal freeways
Under EPA requirements, monitors will be installed at four sites, providing dataabout what the 1 million Southern Californians who live within 300 feet of afreeway are breathing.
By Tony Barboza
6:39 PM PDT, August 25, 2013
Air quality regulators will begin monitoring pollution levels near major Southern Califurnia traffic ad ve rtl se men t
corridors next year, for the first time providing data important to nearly 1 million SouthernCalifornians who are at greater risk of respiratory illness because they live within 300 feet of a freeway.
Under new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requirements, air pollution monitors will be installed at foursites next to some of the region's busiest freeways. Similar steps will occur in more than 100 big cities across thecountry.
Scientists have linked air pollution from traffic to a long list of health problems, including asthma, heart disease,bronchitis and lung cancer.
Though tens of millions of people nationwide Jive within a few hundred feet of a major road, monitoring stationsestablished to measure common air pollutants typically have been placed away from such thoroughfares andother obvious sources of contamination. That's because the monitors are intended to measure pollution acrossentire regions to determine ifthey are within health standards set by the state and federal government.
Of the South Coast Air Quality Management District's 35 air quality monitoring stations measuring pollutantsacross a four-county basin of 17 million people, none sits close to a major roadway. Environmental groups saythat system underestimates exposure levels in many neighborhoods.
The new monitoring is likely to have broad implications. I~ as expected, the new data show higher pollutionlevels, environmental organizations and neighborhood activists almost certainly will call for local officials to takemore aggressive steps to reduce emissions and curtail residential development near freeways.
"We will do everything possible to make sure people who live near those roadways get the protections they'reentitled to," said Angela Johnson Meszaros, an attorney for Physicians for Social Responsibility- Los Angeles,one of several advocacy groups that sued the EPA last year to force it to require fine-particle pollutionmonitoring near Southern Califurnia freeways.
Air quality regulators are now moving in that direction.
"In a place like Los Angeles where a lot of people live next to busy freeways, what you measure near a roadwaymay actually be representative of what people are exposed to in the basin," said Philip Fine, who is in charge ofthe South Coast air district's network ofmonitors.
Scott Fruin, a professor of preventive medicine at USC, believes the EPA's action is long overdue.
"We have known about the adverse health impacts of living near freeways for almost 20 years but don't routinelymonitor air quality there," said Fruin, whose studies have found that pollution concentrations along Los Angelesfreeways that are five to 10 times higher than elsewhere in the city,
Health studies show that the most vulnerable are children, whose developing lungs can be harmed for life by airpollution. In the landmark Children's Health Study, USC researchers found that children living near busyfreeways have higher asthma rates and reduced lung function
Complicating the picture are new findings by UCLA and the California Air Resources Board that pollutants fromcars and trucks can drift more than a mile from Southern California freeways, suggesting that air pollution'seffects could be more widespread than previously thought.
Gledy Martinez, who moved into an apartment a block from the 110 Freeway in downtown Los Angeles fouryears ago, said in Spanish that at the time, "I didn't think about how there was a freeway close by."
The 30-year old cafeteria worker has learned to sleep through the noise from the more than 260,000 vehiclesthat pass by each day, but she now fears that the exhaust fumes and fine particles that drift over from traffic areunhealthful for her fumily.
Her 2-year-old son Bryan suffers from bronchitis, and his doctor can't pinpoint the cause. It could be that theirstudio apartment is too humid or has too many bugs - or it could be from the pollution from the freeway.
Under EPA rules to be phased in over three years, starting in January, the largest metropolitan areas must putfour monitors within about 160 feet of major roadways to measure nitrogen oxides, fine particulates and carbonmonoxide. Smaller areas will be required to have between one and three monitors.
The EPA said it has required monitoring near urban roads before, notably for lead and carbon monoxide in the1970s and '80s, when vehicles were fueled with leaded gasoline.
Air monitors in Southern California have tracked pollution at a distance from major roads for decades,documenting the sharp improvement in the region's smog levels in response to ever-tightening pollution controls.One station in Azusa has been running since 1957, not long after Caltech scientist Arie Jan Haagen-Smit firstlinked smog to automobile tailpipes. Cars, trucks and buses now account for nearly half the region's smog-forming pollution.
For the new roadside monitoring sites, the South Coast air district is using a formula taking into account trafficvolume, particularly diesel trucks, which pollute more than cars. Some of the top candidates include 1-5 nearLincoln Avenue in Anaheim and a two-mile stretch where the 57 and 60 freeways join near the agency'sheadquarters in Diamond Bar.
Another potential site is an experimental air monitoring station inside a graffiti-covered shipping container next tothe 710 Freeway in Long Beach. The station has been used for scientific studies in recent years, pumping air into
a stack ofinstnnnents that can track pollution levels 50 feet from the rush of traffic.
Back in her small apartment, Martinez said she welcomes the new monitors.
''You can see there are too many cars, a lot of exhaust, and we don't breathe clean air," she said in Spanish. ''Forme that's a big worry, more than anything, for my kids, because they are the ones who are stilldeveloping."
